Our resources

Online survey of JM/FC road one way scheme

Dr. Adhiraj Joglekar conducted an online survey to collect views and experiences of users with regards to the JM-FC one way scheme. The results of the first 136 respondents of the survey between 12th and 15th September 09 are summarized below. We thank Dr. Joglekar for granting us permission to use data from his survey and publish the results on our website.

It is apparent from this survey that though the scheme has increased speeds of travel, it has compromised safety of both vehicle travellers and pedestrians and cyclists, while increasing commuting distances and making it inconvenient to bus users.

For some questions total of percentages may add up to more than 100 since multiple options were permitted. Since questions were not mandatory, total number of respondents to some questions may be less than 136.

Cause for the one-way scheme

Knowledge of reasons for the one-way: 87% said they understood and 18% said they didn’t.

Reasons for the one-way scheme: An overwhelming 88% believed it was to reduce congestion and improve speeds, while only 17% thought it was to reorganize road space and provide exclusive lanes for buses and bicycles.

Impact of the one-way scheme

Speed: 66% thought it was speedier now, while 35% thought it hadn’t made any difference.

Safety: Only 30% thought it was safer now, while a huge 70% thought it was more unsafe.

Distance: 59% felt travels have become longer due to a detour.

Driving: A massive 74% thought lane changing had become more difficult.

Inner roads: 78% felt traffic has spilled over in to internal roads making them congested and unsafe.

Pedestrian safety: An overwhelming 76% felt pedestrian safety was compromised by the scheme.

Bus users: 61% felt their journeys had become longer as a result of the scheme.

Bus stop access: 68% felt accessing bus stops was harder now, since it was further away.

Dedicated lanes for buses and cycles

Bus lanes: 66% of the respondents felt that JM road should have bus lanes, while 63% felt so about FC road.

Cycle lanes: Cycle lanes were relatively less popular, with only 52% feeling they should be provided on JM road and 53% feeling they should be provided on FC road.

Future of the one-way scheme

Verdict on the scheme: Only 37% felt the scheme should be continued in its present form. 42% felt it should be modified and a non-trivial 22% felt it should be scrapped.

Conclusions

It is obvious that the purpose of the one-way scheme has not been communicated properly to the citizens since most of them (88%) felt its purpose was to de-congest and increase speeds and only about 23% felt it was also provide bus lanes, cycle lanes and wider footpaths, though the PMC and police had agreed that the scheme also included these measures.

Traffic safety is obviously a huge concern with 70% feeling the roads are less safe now and 74% thinking driving is tougher now.

In addition, the journey has become longer (meaning more fuel consumption etc.) for 60% of vehicle users and 80% feel the peace and quiet of residential neighbourhoods in the inner roads has been compromised.

Pedestrians overwhelmingly (76%) feel that the roads have become more unsafe to walk on and cross.

Bus users have also been adversely affected with 60% journeys becoming longer and 70% users having to walk further to get to bus stops.

A significant majority (about 65%) feel that both JM and FC roads should have bus lanes, while only a slim majority (about 52%) feel they should have cycle lanes. But the majority do want both these facilities on the roads!

Finally, nearly two-thirds of the people (64%) feel that the scheme should either be scrapped or modified before it is continued.

The survey conclusively shows that the scheme has only managed to increase speeds for motorized traffic and has made things worse for pedestrians, cyclists and bus users. Moreover, it has also endangered motorized vehicle users due to increased speeds and difficulty of changing lanes, and has decreased quality of life in the inner roads. Therefore, it should be scrapped forthwith or re-introduced only after suitable modifications to address these problems.